About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
, a bloomberg government former members of both parties said negotiators should be able to reach an agreement. in an hour, president obama speaks to ceo's at the business roundtable, followed by news conferences with house speaker john boehner and minority leader nancy pelosi. >> the supreme court will look at what was passed in 2008 by a majority of six-three, i believe, and they will say that is precedent. indiana had a voter i.d. -- >> they decided on the indiana case, it was constitutional for them to establish id they did not say all of that was subsequently -- >> they talked about indiana. you misrepresented what i said. the supreme court is the law of the land. >> when i hear these accusations that black people voter i.d. loss disproportionately affect minorities -- implies to me that somehow we have something missing in our brain. as -- if white americans can get id to vote and go through all the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough? that is what bothers me about a lot of the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left.
not prohibit the federal government's from funding high- speed rail projects. that is a good first start. as long as there is language and bills that prohibit us from funding, we are going nowhere. so if you'd be good enough to withdraw your language in the appropriation bill or tell mr. mccarthy to do that, that would be a good first start for us. we are not going to get $1 as long as there is a long voyage -- language in the appropriation bills that says no federal money can be spent on california high- speed rail. that does not help us. that does not help but get any more product -- money to the project. that is why i say we are looking for private investment. >> amendments are not meant to help you. they are meant to stop this product until we see a plan terry we have been talking about this for two years. but something i can bring back to my state, my district and say this is the plan. like the last time we talked about it, i suggested he said that with mr. dan richard and go over the plan and review it. i would be happy to have mr. iraq -- mr. richard sit down with you and review w
from the white house was let's fix this problem by incorporating a small businesses and less government intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows
, security, public safety, those are the fundamental obligations of government. and secondly, we live in an increasingly dangerous world with increasing threats against our citizens and targets that are viewed as high profile. for those reasons, mr. speaker and others, i earnestly believe those who serve this country as president should never have to worry about their personal safety. under current law, protection for president obama and president george w. bush will cease after 10 years. both men are young, enjoy good health and have long lives ahead of them postpresidency. this bill proposes to extend that security for the remainder of their lives. there's an unintended anomaly, mr. speaker, that were current law not changed, barbara bush would have more safety than if they were president themselves. the person and the symbol of our presidency is safe and secure for the occuration of their natural lives. with that i would yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, before i yield to the distinguished gentlelady fr
-- more of their money to the federal government without raising the tax rates which we believe will harm our economy. \[inaudible question] >> i think our members understand the seriousness of the situation that our country faces. trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. $16 trillion of debt on the books. every man, woman and child owing the american government $50,000 and that number is increasing every single year. as a result, our members understand that we've got to solve the problem, and we will. >> the house is going to leave today with two days left in the week -- \[inaudible] >> the house leaving with the fiscal cliff -- >> i will be here and will be available any moment to sit down with the president p to get serious about solving this problem. >> does the conference realize that you don't seem to be negotiating? >> our members believe strongly that raising tax rates will hurt the economy. closing loopholes, especially on those who are wealthy is a better way to raise this revenue than raising rates because raising rates will hurt the very people we are expectin
it will undermine democratic governments. it will continue to impede economic growth overseas and it will strengthen us right here in the united states. in other words, this isn't just an economic issue or a health care issue. it's a national security issue. unfortunately, mr. speaker, over the last decade acting in our national security interest has come to mean invading and occupying foreign nations. the iraq war lasted nine years and was responsible for untold human misery. the afghanistan war, now in its 12th year, and it continues to damage our national security interest, instead of enhancing them. it hasn't defeated the taliban, nor has it alleviating crushing poverty or produced a stable democracy in afghanistan. and then there's the cost. some $10 billion a month. that would be a staggering amount of money for a successful policy. for a failed policy, it's downright scandalous, and it is rarely mentioned in all the conversations about so-called deficit crisis and fiscal cliffs. usaid and other civilian arms of government could do a world of good towards solving the aids crisis with a fractio
to run a government but also can deliver on the pornts things that makes it different for job creation. we're the folks that run the education systems that allow us to have the work force, the 21st-century jobs. that is what we get from higher education to work force training, the real obstacle and the income growth right now is having the best education systems. where we are producing the workers of the 21st century. second, we keep the bridges open and hopefully functional and rebuilt. we represent environmental policies to keep our water clear and take on the environmental challenges that we're facing. it is where the rubber hits the road that we need to get the results. we have democratic governors who not only balance budgets understand that they have to be fiscally responsible but we combine that with a vision on education, on ensuring that we get it right when it comes to technology, making sure we have a trained work force for the jobs that aring with created, so we can be the job creators and we see incomes rise on our constituent. that is what voters judge you by. when we com
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)